Is it fair to be expected to pay half her Mortgage?

[Tophat72]

Hi there. I'm looking for some impartial comment on what has become a huge issue between my partner and me.

We are both divorcees but although with similar salaries, have very different financial commitments. I have two children I am financially responsible for while she is childless and comfortably well off. She has her own large home and only has 5 years left to pay on her mortgage. I lost my house in my financial settlement with my ex.

I live with my partner in her home. Before moving in with her, I had to sign a legal agreement acknowledging that I have no claim whatsoever on any percentage of the house in the event of our separation. The house is hers and hers alone. Furthermore, I am not catered for in any way in her will. Should she die, the house and her entire estate goes to her sister and nephew...

My partner believes that all the household expenses, including her mortgage payments, should be split 50-50 between us. I however am adamant that given the circumstances, I should not be contributing towards the purchase of her house and I am only prepared to pay for my share of the other household bills (utilities, council tax, groceries etc)

This has become a huge bone of contention between us and sadly things are looking terminal.

Her position is that paying half of her outstanding mortgage should be looked upon by me as paying a modest rent as if she were my landlady. She also quite rightly points out that I am still living very cheaply and if I were to get a place of my own my monthly outgoings would be well over twice what I currently pay her. She feels that I earn the same as her and live under the same roof so I should pay the same.

From my perspective, I have absolutely no objection to going 50-50, but only if she is prepared to afford me some kind of proportionate security or stake in the house in the event of our separation or her death. I don't see why I should contribute 50% towards the ongoing purchase of a capital investment that I have a 0% share in. I feel as though she wants to have her cake and eat it, keeping everything to herself while expecting me to pay for an equal share of, well nothing.

I've tried to write this as objectively as I can. Obviously her friends and family support her position and my friends and family mine. For my own peace of mind, I would be really keen to read the thoughts of a truly neutral observer. Cheers

Surely she shouldn't have to pay tax on the rental income as it's just half the mortgage cost and the mortgage is deductible.

We need clarification on who pays for repairs to the house and purchases such as carpets etc. If her then charging is even more reasonable as he helps wear them down.

I just want to reiterate what I said yesterday in case it gets buried.

At this point I would be asking for an amendment to the will giving you a secured/ protected tenancy in the event of her death. I don't think it's right that if she dies, you have no security as the house is willed elsewhere.

It's the absolute minimum I would expect after living there as her life partner if this relationship lasts and lasts.

If she says no, I would cut my losses and go.

What we did.
I have adult children my now DH has none. We both owned a house each .
DH sold his and moved Into mine. We both put enough money for bills into a joint account each month. We keep separate finances. We are both retired.

When I die my house ( if it hasn't been swallowed up by care home bills) is going 50:50 to my children but my DH can live there as long as he wants. Till his death if need be. Any money left is to be split between my husband and children.

Any repairs I pay for. Anything for the home we go halves on.

We have tried to keep the will as simple as possible.

In OPs case, and I haven't rtft I would do the same. I would ask for no payment from him other half the bills. She should make a will llike I did. If she dies , he can live there providing he pays for the upkeep of the house.

It's difficult and very tricky . My take on it would be to take her on a nice holiday every year in lieu of your share of the rent . That I think would be the most loving thing to do. That way you are contributing without it all being divvied up to the last penny.

It was my DH who suggested our situation btw.

If the relationship fails then you leave and let the situation go back to her in her house paying her own way .

You don't want to be fighting over every penny. That's just mercenary.( I'm not suggesting you are.)

All the ifs and buts aside, she doesn't want to share her asset with you and that is her right. So you need to buy your own property if you don't want to continue to lodge. Can't see any other route for you.

I'm not sure it is her right actually. If she really wants to make sure it is only hers in the future she shouldn't cohabit with her partner. The longer he is there contributing to mortgage and improvement etc the more likely he will be considered to have an interest in the property if it goes to court. e.g. if she dies in 20 years time and he has lived there all that time contributing to mortgage (for first five years) and maintenance improvement.

I could at a push buy a place of my own and I would do that rather than rent but things would be very tight. I fully admit I have a comfortable lifestyle but at a cost. I have no long term security

Well then, in that position - Id be sorting my own long term security, having accepted the fact its not going to come via a house I live in but don't have a financial stake in.

As calculating as this lady sounds, you sound just as calculating OP. Perhaps she knows why she drew up an agreement before you moved in. Probably just as well in the circumstances. You've a comfortable lifestyle on a good salary, a place where your children can be with you. Your children are provided for. All of that is more than some people have.

Life isn't always fair, unfortunately. But at least you have the means to sort your long term security. Better to do that, than get caught up in advice that you can see a solicitor, find ways of forcing this woman into handing over what you want. She's not your wife, nor the mother of your children, and although some are aiming to make 4 years sound like a lifetime, it truly isn't. In your shoes Id put my energy into what really matters, and make current situation work for me

DOWSER

That is an entirely reasonable solution and one I would wager the OP would have no problem with.

Your house you pay for it. Mind you It sounds like you have a loving relationship, rather than a financial arrangement.

This is my issue.
The OP is NOT in a situation where he is renting. He is living somewhere that isn't his and I'm pretty sure his DP will not let him have a lot of say on how to organise the house etc... as it is hers.
He has had no choice on where it is etc... either.
But he is expected to pay for it, as if he was renting....
On the top of it, he also pays half of all utilities etc... even though it's abig house, probably bigger than he would have chosen for himself?, so the bills are higher than what he would have had to pay on his own.

On the other hand, she is expecting him to pay the morgage (not a rent!) but wo having any interest on the house. Ie she is asking him to take on board what is her financial responsibility.
Now, of course, she could take a lodger instead but it's clear that having a lodger in your house is a very different kettle of fish than a partner. To start with, you have to share your house WITH A STRANGER.
And then she is also asking for him to pay half of the other bills, some of which will NOT cost twice as much because he is living there (heating for example)

So in effect, she has a lot of advanatges from having the OP living in her house whereas the OP has all the inconveniences about living in her house...

Conclusion, in a case like this, I would either decide to have each their own house and own costs.
Or for her to keep her house, rent it and for them to buy/rent a house together, one that they would have chosen together.

Dowser has another nice proposal.

Ok just asked a good friend who also happens to be a family law barrister and it is as many people have pointed out. If he has a legally binding tenancy agreement ( and she pays tax on this income etc etc) then he is her lodger but if he is paying her informally as her partner ( married or not) then he can go to court and insist she pays him the money he has paid in ( this bit of paper they have that he gets nothing may well not be legally binding but can definitely be challenged) so if this relationship ends and he has paid 3% of the mortgage he would be entitled to a payment of 3% of the market value of the house less the % that relates to her original Capitol investment if that makes sense?!? Basically what he paid plus appreciation if the house has gone up in value. It really really shouldn't have to come to this though. If he is paying some of the mortgage he is entitled to a proportionate share in the property, all be it a small stake as she has paid more and for longer. Really if this relationship is based on love this shouldn't be an issue, if they broke up she wouldn't loose her house, she would simply have to re mortgage a tiny amount and buy you out. This would simply be paying you what you put in, money she has been saving, nothing more nothing less. I can't grasp why any person would want to see someone they have spent such a significant part of their life with go homeless without so much as a deposit for a rental property in the bank even if the relationship has come to an end, that would be truly hateful. I also wouldn't feel comfortable with myself knowing I had effectively stolen from someone, but then I wouldn't want the man I loved to feel like my lodger, that can't be the basis of a healthy equal relationship.

He hasn't paid half the mortgage though, he has paid 50% of the monthly repayments for 4 years. My maths is diabolical but by my dodgy calculations he has paid 50% of 1/6th of the mortgage. Not even 50% if the money he pays each month includes bills, can't remember if op pays rent+ extra for bills/groceries.

I'm with the camp that says you have no claim. Sort your own security out by either renting or buying your own place. This is why the common law spouse nonsense needs to be stamped out entirely.

Oysterbabe
"Surely she shouldn't have to pay tax on the rental income as it's just half the mortgage cost and the mortgage is deductible."

Rent is income, mortgage isn't, if she wants him to pay rent then it should be formalised and that will (if the rental amount is high enough) incur paying tax.

I have posted a link about it earlier and someone else gave a real life example.

Nothing to do with common law.

If the partner is convinced they are paying towards the mortgage repayments, they have a claim on it for what they have paid. It's the law.

In this case, it probably doesn't apply because of the legal agreement the OP signed at the beginning. But only because of that.

Otherwise, the OP would have a claim (yes, very small) on the value of the house. It's the law!

Sanchar, no one is arguing he should get half the house, simply a % relating to the amount he pays / has paid. Or he pays nothing and it's all hers, it can't be both surely people must see that. Either you have a tenant with all the proper paper work and legalities in place and he would not be paying half in this case or the are live partners and all that goes with that including sharing.

Life not live

Boneyback is correct, lots of people on here who think their partners can give them a few hundred a month just as 'rent' and they are not actually within the law. If it is rent this must be formally agreed including declaring this as income to all relevant parties. Or they are buying a share in your home. If the shit hit the fan and the partner decided to be arsy you would either have to pay him back his 'rent' or admit to fraud ,!!

I've lived with someone in his flat before. I paid half of everything, including the mortgage, as that was the cost of living there. It would never have occurred to me to ask to go on the mortgage, or receive dividends on the sale.

However, crucially I also had a flat in my own name, which I have kept so, as an insurance policy of sorts, in case things don't work out ( previously divorced so learned the hard way on that one!).

I think the problem is that OP has all his eggs in his partner's basket.

In his situation, I would buy a BTL, as security for him & his children.

Phalenopsisgirl That's exactly what I thought. If there is no tenancy agreement then he will not be considered a lodger and he may be entitled to a proportion of the house in the future (depending on his contribution).

Op I think you need to decide if this relationship is the one you want to be in. I would go see a solicitor and get your exact position clarified either way, then you can have the chat that
A- " I love you, I want us to share our lives that includes our home, I would like this recognised, although we originally were keeping things very separate I feel that after this long it is time to throw our lots in together "
Or
B- " clearly we are not on the same page regarding how we see a relationship, so I suggest I take £ x and let you move on without me, I wish you well"

Phal, that's why lawyers always say never let the live in lover pay the mortgage or for home improvements. Just let them buy the food - as the former might give some kind of constructive trust over the property and the latter almost certainly does not.

In my view if you just kick them out every night you save a lot of hassle on all counts and it's better for your children not having to live with a new men either so it's win win all round. You get your freedom and space and sex and the man doesn't make claims on your home and finances.

I presume people have seen today's case under the 1975 Act which is all over the papers - man never divorced wife as too mean to pay her a settlement. Bought house jointly with new live in lover. They own sepraate shares. He never made a will - silly man. Now he's dead other woman claimed under the 1975 Act to be given his half of the house - his children get nothing. The court thinks that's fine and are forcing his estranged wife to pay £100,000 of legal costs which she doesn't have.

Yup, he doesn't need to be on the mortgage, but it would be nice for her to recognise this without it having to go legal. Also despite her will not including him he would still be able to contest this after her death and he would have a very strong case. Anyone can contest a will, even you or I could pitch up and say we had a claim on some of her house, we would be laughed out of court but we could try it. He on the other hand would not, as the law stands she would have bequethed the house not all of which was legally hers to do so! Even though the property is in her name etc.

It would never have occurred to me to ask to go on the mortgage, or receive dividends on the sale.

It wouldn't, but, in fact, you could have claimed it, as you were entitled to it, should you want to.

Yup, I can well believe that. People are very naive. Always always consult a solicitor even if just for advice, that's my motto. If this woman wants to keep her Independence from op she need to pay for that privilege.

It's rather disingenuous for the OP to say he 'lost' his house. His children are still living in it, presumably?

I think there's a bigger emotional piece missing in this jigsaw. The OP's intention was to write 'objectively' but there is absolutely no mention of any feelings about his DP at all - no sadness that their relationship is being prevented from moving onto the next stage by this financial sticking point, just an irritation that he's not getting a return on what he sees as his investment. Unless the DP is a super-cold bitch - in which case, why be with her? - there are presumably some good reasons why she doesn't feel comfortable mingling finances after four years.

Alas alas- as Deo just pointed out your suggestion would still entitle the live in lover to a share in the house, just because one actually pays the mortgage doesn't mean they hold all the cards. If she wants to own her house completely she has to pay for it completely, end of.